What happens next?: a claims database study of second-line pharmacotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who initiate selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment

BACKGROUND: The objective of this research was to examine treatment patterns and health-care costs associated with second-step pharmacotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who initiated monotherapy with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in 2010. METHODS: This claims database study analyzed patients diagnosed with MDD who were prescribed a monotherapy SSRI, with the first prescription identified as the index date. Patients were required to be ≥18 years old, to have continuous insurance coverage from 1 year prior (pre-index) through 1 year post (post-index) from the index date, and to have not received an antidepressant in the pre-index period. The analyses are descriptive of the patient characteristics, initial SSRI prescribed, most commonly prescribed second-step therapies, and annualized health-care costs. RESULTS: The identified patients (N = 5,012) were predominantly female (65.2%) with a mean age of 41.9 years. The most frequent index SSRIs were citalopram (30.1%) and sertraline (27.5%), and 52.9% of patients were prescribed a second-step pharmacotherapy during the post-index period. Add-on therapy occurred twice more frequently than switching treatments, with either anxiolytics (40.2%) or antidepressants (37.1%) as the most common classes of add-on pharmacological therapies. Patients who added a second medication or switched therapies had higher annualized medical costs compared with patients who continued their index SSRI or discontinued treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who were initially treated with an SSRI therapy, approximately half were prescribed a second-step treatment. In this comprehensive claims analysis, many of these patients experienced the addition of second medication, rather than switching to a new therapy. Given the type of medications used, it is possible that second-step interventions were targeted toward resolution of residual symptoms; however, this work is limited by the use of claims data without information on dosing or clinical symptoms, side effects, or response. Findings from this study set the expectation that physicians and patients will most likely need to partner for additional interventions in order to achieve remission

Methodologies used in cost-effectiveness models for evaluating treatments in major depressive disorder: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.</p

Preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its treatment

Kate Van Brunt1, Louis S Matza1, Peter M Classi2, Joseph A Johnston21Center for Health Outcomes Research at United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USAObjectives: A growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of considering patient preferences as part of the medical decision-making process. The purpose of the current review was to identify and summarize published research on preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and its treatment, while suggesting directions for future research.Methods: A literature search identified 15 articles that included a choice-based assessment of preferences related to ADHD.Results: The 15 studies were grouped into four categories based on preference content: preference for a treatment directly experienced by the respondent or the respondent&amp;#39;s child; preference for general treatment approaches; preference for a specific treatment attribute or outcome; and preference for aspects of ADHD-related treatment. Preference assessment methods ranged from global single items to detailed choice-based procedures, with few studies using rigorously developed assessment methods. Respondents included patients with ADHD, clinicians, parents, teachers, and survey respondents from the general population. Factors influencing preference include treatment characteristics, effectiveness for specific symptoms, side effects, and respondent demographics. Minimal research has examined treatment preferences of adults with ADHD.Discussion: Because there is no dominant treatment known to be the first choice for all patients, ADHD is a condition for which individual preferences can play an important role when making treatment decisions for individual patients. Given the potential role of preferences in clinical decision-making, more research is needed to better understand the preferences of patients with ADHD and other individuals who are directly affected by the disorder, such as parents and teachers.Keywords: patient preference, ADHD, parent preference, utilit

Economic burden and comorbidities of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among pediatric patients hospitalized in the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This retrospective database analysis used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to examine common primary diagnoses among children and adolescents hospitalized with a secondary diagnosis of attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and assessed the burden of ADHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Hospitalized children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with a secondary diagnosis of ADHD were identified. The 10 most common primary diagnoses (using the first 3 digits of the ICD-9-CM code) were reported for each age group. Patients with 1 of these conditions were selected to analyze demographics, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Control patients were selected if they had 1 of the 10 primary diagnoses and no secondary ADHD diagnosis. Patient and hospital characteristics were reported by cohort (i.e., patients with ADHD vs. controls), and LOS and costs were reported by primary diagnosis. Multivariable linear regression analyses were undertaken to adjust LOS and costs based on patient and hospital characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 126,056 children and 204,176 adolescents were identified as having a secondary diagnosis of ADHD. Among children and adolescents with ADHD, the most common diagnoses tended to be mental health related (i.e., affective psychoses, emotional disturbances, conduct disturbances, depressive disorder, or adjustment reaction). Other common diagnoses included general symptoms, asthma (in children only), and acute appendicitis. Among patients with ADHD, a higher percentage were male, white, and covered by Medicaid. LOS and costs were higher among children with ADHD and a primary diagnosis of affective psychoses (by 0.61 days and $51), adjustment reaction (by 1.71 days and$940), or depressive disorder (by 0.41 days and $124) versus controls. LOS and costs were higher among adolescents with ADHD and a primary diagnosis of affective psychoses (by 1.04 days and$352), depressive disorder (by 0.94 days and $517), conduct disturbances (by 0.86 days and$1,330), emotional disturbances (by 1.45 days and $1,626), adjustment reaction (by 1.25 days and$702), and neurotic disorders (by 1.60 days and $541) versus controls.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinicians and health care decision makers should be aware of the potential impact of ADHD on hospitalized children and adolescents.</p

Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use for children with ADHD with and without a co-occurring reading disorder: A retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often have a co-occurring reading disorder (RD). The purpose of this research was to assess differences between children with ADHD without RD (ADHD-only) and those with ADHD and co-occurring RD (ADHD+RD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the U.S. Thomson Reuter Marketscan^®Databases for the years 2005 through 2007, this analysis compared the medical records--including patient demographics, comorbidities, and medication use--of children (age < 18) with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with ADHD+RD were significantly younger, more likely to have received a procedure code associated with formal psychological or non-psychological testing, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbid bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, or depression. They were no more likely to have received an antidepressant, anti-manic (bipolar), or antipsychotic, and were significantly less likely to have received a prescription for a stimulant medication.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Relying on a claims database, there appear to be differences in the patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use when comparing children with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD.</p

Social and emotional difficulties in children with ADHD and the impact on school attendance and healthcare utilization

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to examine the impact of co-occurring social and emotional difficulties on missed school days and healthcare utilization among children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods Data were from the 2007 U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and were based on parental proxy responses to questions in the Sample Child Core, which includes questions on demographics, health, healthcare treatment, and social and emotional status as measured by questions about depression, anxiety, and phobias, as well as items from the brief version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between co-occurring social and emotional difficulties with missed school days and healthcare utilization, adjusting for demographics. Results Of the 5896 children aged 6–17 years in the 2007 NHIS, 432 (7.3%) had ADHD, based on parental report. Children with ADHD and comorbid depression, anxiety, or phobias had significantly greater odds of experiencing > 2 weeks of missed school days, ≥ 6 visits to a healthcare provider (HCP), and ≥ 2 visits to the ER, compared with ADHD children without those comorbidities (OR range: 2.1 to 10.4). Significantly greater odds of missed school days, HCP visits, and ER visits were also experienced by children with ADHD who were worried, unhappy/depressed, or having emotional difficulties as assessed by the SDQ, compared with ADHD children without those difficulties (OR range: 2.2 to 4.4). Conclusions In children with ADHD, the presence of social and emotional problems resulted in greater odds of missed school days and healthcare utilization. These findings should be viewed in light of the limited nature of the parent-report measures used to assess social and emotional problems.</p

Optimal unemployment insurance with monitoring and sanctions

This paper analyzes the design of optimal unemployment insurance in a search equilibrium framework where search e¤ort among the unemployed is not perfectly observable. We examine to what extent the optimal policy involves monitoring of search e¤ort and bene…t sanctions if observed search is deemed insu¢cient. We …nd that introducing monitoring and sanctions represents a welfare improvement for reasonable estimates of monitoring costs; this conclusion holds both relative to a system featuring inde…nite payments of bene…ts and a system with a time limit on unemployment bene…t receipt. The optimal sanction rates implied by our calibrated model are much higher than the sanction rates typically observed in European labor markets

Reasons for refusing parenteral therapy: a qualitative study of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

While parenteral prostacyclin (pPCY) therapy, delivered either subcutaneously or intravenously, is recommended for pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with severe or rapidly developing disease, some patients refuse this treatment. This study aimed to understand, directly from patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension, why pPCY was refused and, in some cases, later accepted. Interviews were conducted with 25 pulmonary arterial hypertension patients who previously refused pPCY therapy (Group A: Refused/Never initiated (n = 9) and Group B: Refused/Initiated (n = 16)). Patients in both groups believed that pPCY could improve their symptoms, slow disease progression, and provide them a greater ability to perform activities. Reasons for refusal included concern over side effects and the perceived limitations of pPCY on daily activities. Group A perceived their decision as a balance between quality of life and prolonging life and most acknowledged they would reconsider pPCY if other treatment options were exhausted. Group B cited they initiated therapy due to a worsening of symptoms, disease progression, to improve quality of life, to be there for their family, or a desire to live. Following initiation, Group B indicated their experience met expectations with reduced symptoms, slowed disease progression, and perception of improved survival; concerns related to pPCY were described as manageable. Given the efficacy of pPCY therapy, clinicians should apply knowledge of these findings in clinical practice. Patients noted improvements to parenteral pump technologies to include smaller size, water resistance, and implantability may increase their acceptance of this modality. Development efforts should focus on technologies that increase the acceptance of pPCY when indicated